I was thinking about this situation this morning.
My take on it is this: Britain did not join for the same reason as the Continental countries did. The European Project started as a stability mechanism in what was a chaotic post WW2 world. Later, it was seen as a modernising mechanism for the former Eastern bloc countries and indeed Spain and Portugal.
For Britain, it needed neither stabilising I.e, to escape the prospect of tyranny, nor did it need modernising. The reason why Britain joined was because its post-War decline seemed relentless and unstoppable. If I’m correct, I recall reading a passage that MacMillan’s original thoughts on the EEC was that it would become a “replacement” to the British Empire. That’s a total misrepresentation of the European Project, it’s power comes by pooling many powers together, it’s not to be used as a means to make any one country more powerful than the others. Britain voted yes to remain in 1975 because it felt had no other option to. The economy was crumbling and union militantism was rife. The only people who did not want to join was communists, fascists and the Powellite right.
Fast forward to 1979 and the British economy was placed under IMF controls. 6 years after joining the EEC, the economy essentially got worse-this SUGGESTS that in the immediate term EEC membership had no effect for the British economy—and why would it? The plan for wealth distribution by constant economic growth and the constant growth of the public sector led to enormous inflation and a deterioration in real living standards by 1979. Britain’s economic problems, which it looked to the EU to solve, was it’s own fiscal model.
So we can say if Britain never joined the EEC at least until 1979, things could remain generally the same. It was Thatcher who controlled inflation and brought back steady economic growth. I don’t agree with the shameful lack of regard for industry for manufacturing the Thatcherites had, but generally the mid 1980s was when Britain’s post war fortunes began to improve. I would say that in this ATL, Thatcher would want in the mid 80s some kind of access to the EEC and since the single market wasn’t invented then, I could see her negotiating a free trade deal with the EU by day the late 80s.
Ignoring the inevitable battles in the story party that would ensue about how close Britain should get to Europe, we can suggest that since Britain wasn’t in the EEC it wouldn’t join the ERM, meaning the events that led to Thatchers downfall probably wouldn’t happen. That leads to the question of whether or not Kinnock would win in 1992, or if there would be a hung parliament, or she wins another majority.
Let’s go for an in between, there’s a hung parliament, thatcher steps down and by 1992 you have Clark or Heseltine or Portillo leading the party. Regardless of their views of Europe, they are all pro business and would negotiate some kind of bilateral deal with the EU-maybe free movement of people or whatever. Now even though Britain is still not in the EU, it should have zero tariffs if there is a good trade deal, that should mean that supply chains would still be Cross-Channel as it is today. Passporting rights for the City only came in the past 10 years or so, so I don’t see the City being any smaller.
Very, very long story later, I honestly think we would be where we are now. Not much change if I’m honest. Britain would continue to muddle about EU entry for decades and would look like Norway or Switzerland. The paradox is, without the Uk, the EU might integrate far more quickly in This timeline, and would exceed a point of integration that Britain would feel comfortable joining. Gordon Brown didn’t have much time for Europe (I’m surprised he’s not a Brexiteer), but Blair always did, so I can see some plan in the early 00s for Britain to join the EU as a potential point of downfall for Blair. Other than that, I think it would be the same as it is now. The only change would be canvassing would start for the 2020 elections next year-with Prime Minister George Osbourne.